Posted on 09/30/2006 3:03:14 PM PDT by Iam1ru1-2
Each of you has undoubtedly seen the clips of Bill Clinton bushwhacking Chris Wallace in a Fox News interview last Sunday. Claiming that his interlocutor was doing “the bidding of the right wing,” Clinton lectured Wallace with the same finger-wagging intensity he unleashed on the American people back in 1998.
Clinton’s now-famous Lewinsky lie makes for an instructive comparison because it reminds us that this man, this former U.S. president, is a peerless prevaricator. “Clinton’s an unusually good liar,” said former Democrat Senator and Medal of Honor recipient Bob Kerrey. “Unusually good.”
Indeed. Even the New York Times once lamented Clinton’s “mysterious passion for lying” and for “lying about his lies.” And the liberal New Republic’s Andrew Sullivan noted, “From the beginning, Clinton has lied with indiscriminate abandon.” Given all this, why should we be surprised when, in a desperate attempt to repair his legacy, Clinton now erroneously claims to have done everything in his power to kill Osama bin Laden?
Clinton apologists have long insisted that he was distracted by the Lewinsky investigation at a time when his focus would have otherwise been on the increasing lethality of al-Qa’ida attacks against U.S. targets. Thus, they say, the Republicans were to blame. It was conservative Republicans, after all, who manufactured a public outcry, ultimately venting their contempt for the president with mean-spirited hearings and an ignominious impeachment. It was a “Republican prosecutor” who persecuted Clinton by digging into his amorous activities. Clinton argued that his “private life” is not a public matter, and went on to enlighten America on the semantics of the word “is.”
Contrary to Clinton’s claim, the alleged wall between a leader’s “private virtue” and his ability to act with “public virtue” is a fiction.
Contrary to Clinton’s claim, the alleged wall between a leader’s “private virtue” and his ability to act with “public virtue” is a fiction—and a dangerous one. Our nation’s Founders understood this truth from the beginning. As John Adams wrote to historian, poet and playwright Mercy Otis Warren—perhaps the most important woman of the Revolutionary era—in 1776, during America’s first war, “Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics.” Adams continued, “There must be a positive passion for the public good, the public interest, honour, power and glory, established in the minds of the people, or there can be no republican government, nor any real liberty: and this public passion must be superiour to all private passions.”
John Adams’ cousin, Samuel Adams, agreed. Writing to fellow patriot James Warren, President of the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts, Revolutionary War general and husband of Mercy, he said, “Since private and publick Vices, are in Reality, though not always apparently, so nearly connected, of how much Importance, how necessary is it, that the utmost Pains be taken by the Publick, to have the Principles of Virtue early inculcated on the Minds even of children, and the moral Sense kept alive, and that the wise institutions of our Ancestors for these great Purposes be encouraged by the Government.” Sam Adams concluded that public virtue must be the foundation of public life, citizenship and leadership, “For no people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preservd. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauchd in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders.”
Our Founders understood the inextricable connection between national security and the private virtue of a nation’s people and her leaders.
Clearly, our Founders understood the inextricable connection between national security and the private virtue of a nation’s people and her leaders. Confronted with an enormous, looming threat on the horizon and uncertain of the nascent nation’s future, private virtue was foremost in these leaders’ minds. Without it, they knew, they would “sink under their own weight,” British regulars—or Islamic fascists—notwithstanding.
How would these men react to Bill Clinton’s claims that criticisms of his “private life” distracted him from the execution of his public duties? Most certainly by concluding that this disgraced former president’s decadent private life was the distraction that precipitated his many derelictions of duty.
In fact, there would have been little distraction if Clinton had simply told the truth. For the Democrats’ standard-bearer, however, the truth is whatever means serves his particular end. Clinton’s in-your-face denials were an invitation to investigate, and his stonewalling at every stage of the ensuing investigation was a profile in cowardice.
Contrary to Clinton’s claim that his vigorous denials were to protect his “private life,” he lied to protect his political fortunes. To admit that he’d sexually used an intern would have exposed his limitless hypocrisy—after all, Clinton fostered a pretentious image as a women’s liberationist, which is why “soccer moms,” his largest constituency, elected him twice.
An admission of truth would have lent substantial credibility to all the other accusations of sexual abuse prior to and during his presidency—claims which Clintonista confidant Betsey Wright, Deputy Chair of Clinton/Gore 1992, wrote off as “bimbo eruptions.”
If Sunday’s charade was any indication, the Great Prevaricator still has it in him to work his way around the truth. This latest foray into falsehood allows him to mend fences with liberal partisans while doing his wife’s dirty work in advance of her 2008 presidential bid. Perhaps this is just Bill’s way of making amends, but his penchant for prevarication will once again take its toll on the truth. As his former press secretary Mike McCurry once confessed, “The White House lies about everything; our credibility is zero.” Six years out of office, Bill Clinton is still taking his toll on the security of the nation he swore to defend
Throw the lying bum out!!!!!!!
Synopsis:
When bill's lips are moving, he's still lying. ssdd
"In the previous administration, we had an attack on the World
Trade Center, on Khobar Towers. We had attacks on both embassies
in Kenya and Tanzania, an attack on the USS Cole. Also, Osama bin
Laden in February of 1998 made it clear that he not only intended
to wage war on the United States, but he wanted to use Iraq as a central battleground. In short, there was a gathering threat. In those years, bin Laden noticed that the United States had, in fact, been cutting back dramatically on intelligence assets and on military assets."
---White House Press Secretary Tony Snow
A classic sociopath.I hate to admit it,but when BC denied having sex with Monica,i still wanted to believe him.Of course that was before i got on the net.
"There's nothing wrong with getting angry if you're right, as
Chris Matthews put it. But when Clinton went after Wallace, he
inadvertently allowed his mask to slip. America got a glimpse
not just of a former president who feels mischaracterized,
but of a man filled with contempt for the lesser mortals who
would seek to undo him. His inner Gollum was visible beneath a
roiling rage... Experience tells us, too, that manipulators are
always contemptuous of those they manipulate... Clinton's marmish
scolding of Wallace was a telling moment, much like another time
he wagged his finger on television."
---columnist Kathleen Parker
"So where did that poise go as Mr. Wallace asked a thoroughly
mannerly question about the Clinton anti-terror record? The
answer is revealed in the first words out of his presidential
mouth. 'First I want to talk about the context in which this
arises. I'm being asked this on the Fox Network.' Huh? How in
the world does that matter? Is there something otherworldly
about fielding a question from someone who might not share your
politics? Ask Ronald Reagan or either President Bush about any
interview conducted over the years by CNN, ABC, CBS or NBC, to say
nothing of the agenda-setting major newspapers. Can you imagine
a Republican president angrily obsessing about the questioner
to the questioner's face before attempting an answer?"
---Dallas Morning News columnist Mark Davis
said former Democrat Senator and Medal of Honor recipient Bob Kerrey. “Unusually good.”
Medal of Honor?????
The lack of editing discredits the entire article.
THE BIG LIE
"At least I tried [to get Osama bin Laden]. That's the difference
in me and some, including all the right-wingers who are attacking
me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to
try. They did not try. I tried. So I tried and failed."
---Bill Clinton, the Great Prevaricator, responding to Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday"
oooppppsss.
I thought it said John Kerry was a medal of honor recipient.
my bad!
Words fail me.
Clinton sucks!
Both Clintons Suck.
Except that, at least in extreme cases, he has a "tell": getting angry.
This is just my arm chair pyschologizing, but I don't think (as many do) that Clinton is completely, ah what's the word, anti-social, amoral? IOW he does understand to some degree the difference between right and wrong. Therefor when he "has to" lie he gets angry with however is "making" him lie, that, and the psychic energy required to convince himself of the "truth" or at least the "justness" of his lies, come out in anger.
IOW the anger is not feigned, nor part of Clinton "working himself up" to a lie, but rather is the result of the lying.
If he was a really good liar he'd be able to do it, even in an adversarial environment, and consistently keep his cool. But Clinton isn't that good a liar.
So do his "lovers".
I'm not a psychologist either and my opinion isn't as a professional,but rather an amatuer."Wouldn't a true sociopath be able to lie without getting angry about it?"Good question.Maybe/maybe not.They experience anger just like us.They're also consumate actors,so if "anger"is appropriate at the time......
That is the name of the medal that was erroneously given to him. Not a statement of fact. So the article is CORRECT!!
how do you tell a clinton is lying...hold a mirror under their nose...if there is condensation and they are drawing a breath....they are lying!!!!
We may disagree with his liberal politics, but please, let's not confuse Bob Kerrey, a true American hero, with the J. F. Kerry who recently suckered 48% of the electorate into voting for him.
Don't feel too bad. John Kerry got confused for a long time WRT Bob Kerrey as well. His website claimed that he, John Kerry, was on a certain committee (or was chairman, I've forgotten), when it was actually Bob Kerrey. True story. Kerry didn't even know that he wasn't on that committee.
(Can someone correct me on the details, please?)
I don't think Clinton is always being a prevaricator.
Sometimes he's simply mendacious.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.